Artículo. Lo Que Los Activistas Trans No Quieren Que Sepas. Autoginefilia PDF
Artículo. Lo Que Los Activistas Trans No Quieren Que Sepas. Autoginefilia PDF
Artículo. Lo Que Los Activistas Trans No Quieren Que Sepas. Autoginefilia PDF
W:DQW<RXWR
.QRZDQGZK\\RXVKRXOGNQRZLWDQ\ZD\
-0LFKDHO%DLOH\.LLUD7ULHD
3XEOLVKHGE\-RKQV+RSNLQV8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV
DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2007.0041
521
J. Michael Bailey and Kiira Triea
as well as what transsexuals are likely to say publicly.The narrative has been ex-
tended to an etiological theory, which Lawrence (2007b) has called “the brain-
sex theory of transsexualism.”The transsexual advocacy website, transsexual.org,
puts this theory succinctly: “A transsexual is a person in which the sex-related
structures of the brain that define gender identity are exactly opposite the phys-
ical sex organs of the body.”
The standard, feminine essence narrative, and the associated brain-sex theory,
are incorrect, in the sense that they do not represent reality, even if they do cor-
respond with many transsexual individuals’ beliefs and identities.The best scien-
tific evidence (discussed below) indicates that there are two distinct subtypes of
MtF transsexuals, and that the feminine essence narrative at best approximates
the life history of only one subtype. Paradoxically, this explanation of MtF trans-
sexualism persists because it is the explanation preferred by the other subtype, to
which it does not apply at all. The popularity of the feminine essence narrative
reflects factors other than the strength of scientific support. Its persistence has
likely had negative consequences for both science and transsexuals themselves.
kinds of attraction to male and female bodies. Blanchard (1989b) thus suggests
that it be characterized as “pseudobisexuality.”
Autogynephilia appears to be a paraphilia. Paraphilias are unusual, intense, and
persistent erotic interests. The concept of paraphilia is a controversial one, with
some arguing that it is merely a word used to stigmatize sexual behavior that
most people find undesirable (Moser 2001). Some paraphilias (e.g., pedophilia
and sadism) are harmful to other people, while others (e.g., autogynephilia and
fetishism) are not.Two non-obvious facts about paraphilias suggest that the label
paraphilia may represent more than a mere value judgment. First, paraphilias
are found nearly exclusively in males (APA 2000, p. 568). Second, at least some
paraphilias tend to occur together. Autogynephilia, for example, appears to be
correlated with other paraphilias, especially masochism (Lawrence 2006). Adver-
tisements of dominatrixes frequently offer services to cross-dressers, and autog-
ynephilic males are more likely than other males to become sexually aroused to
stimuli depicting masochistic themes (Chivers and Blanchard 1996; Wilson and
Gosselin 1980). Of men who die practicing the dangerous masochistic activity
of autoerotic asphyxia, approximately 25% are cross-dressed, a much higher per-
centage than one would expect based on the number of nonhomosexual cross-
dressers in the general population (Blanchard and Hucker 1991).
Homosexual Male-to-Female Transsexualism
Homosexual MtF transsexuals are much easier than autogynephilic transsex-
uals for most people to comprehend. Homosexual transsexuals are best under-
stood as a subset of homosexual males who were very feminine from early child-
hood. In some ways, then, they do appear to fit the feminine essence narrative:
they had male bodies as children, but behaviorally and psychologically they were
different, in some respects, from typical boys and more similar to typical girls.
Most males who begin life as extremely feminine boys, even those whose
femininity includes the wish to become girls, do not become transsexual. In the
contemporary United States, most become homosexual men (Bailey and Zucker
1995; Green 1987; Zuger 1984). Homosexual MtF transsexuals, in contrast, per-
sist in their wish to become female (Bailey 2003; Blanchard 1990). The reasons
for this atypical persistence are unclear. However, these individuals often have a
difficult time socially, romantically, and sexually, and their transition appears to be
largely motivated by a desire to improve their lives in these domains.
As their label implies, homosexual MtF transsexuals are homosexual with
respect to their birth sex.That is, they are attracted exclusively to men.Although
some writers have objected to the use of the word homosexual to refer to indi-
viduals who have sex with men as women (e.g., Gooren 2006), we retain the ter-
minology because it emphasizes the fact that homosexual MtFs are a subset of,
and developmentally related to, other homosexual males. Furthermore, it empha-
sizes the most efficient and practical way of distinguishing homosexual and auto-
gynephilic transsexuals. Homosexual transsexuals are unambiguously, exclusively,
(GIRES 2006), appeared to base its support of transsexual treatment and rights
largely on the studies and their alleged implication that “transsexualism is a
neuro-developmental condition of the brain.” Several of the signatories of this
statement are distinguished researchers. The transsexual brain studies have also
received considerable scientific attention. As of February 1, 2007, the study by
Zhou et al. (1995) has been cited by 117 scholarly articles, and that of Kruijver
et al. (2000) has been cited by 43 scholarly articles. In contrast, Blanchard’s three
most highly cited autogynephilia-related studies (Blanchard 1985, 1989b; Blan-
chard, Clemmensen, and Steiner 1987) have each earned 38 such citations.
In our view, the influence of the transsexual brain studies is disproportionate
compared with their scientific value to understanding the etiology of MtF trans-
sexualism. Their relevance as support for the feminine essence narrative, as
opposed to Blanchard’s theory, is extremely weak—indeed, it is arguably absent.
There are several important limitations that prevent the brain studies from being
relevant in this regard (Lawrence 2007b). The most critical problem is that nei-
ther study includes the necessary hormonal controls to exclude the possibility
that the feminization of the BSTc in MtFs was due to hormone treatment, espe-
cially estrogen therapy, received for transsexualism. Recent research shows that
the volume of the hypothalamus is highly dependent on such hormonal treat-
ment, with smaller volumes associated with estrogenic treatment (Hulshoff Pol
et al. 2006).We concur with Lawrence (2007b) that this is the most likely expla-
nation of the Zhou et al. (1995) and Kruijver et al. (2000) findings. Certainly
those findings should be regarded cautiously until a study has ruled out the con-
cern regarding hormonal treatment.
Evidence from Sex-Reassigned Children
In principle, the feminine essence narrative and brain sex theory could be in-
stantiated by selecting a normal girl, medically masculinizing her body, and rear-
ing her as a boy from an early age. If anyone could be a female trapped in a male
body, or have a female brain in a male body, it would be a female such as this.
What we know about such cases suggests that they are similar to homosexual,
and different from nonhomosexual, MtF transsexuals.
There have been a few rare cases of females born with virilized genitalia due
to prenatal maternal use of a progestin, in which the attempt was made to rear
them as boys. The second author of this article is one such case, and she has
known two others personally. All three cases were quite similar in presentation
to homosexual MtF transsexuals: noticeably feminine presentation and interests,
early expression of dissatisfaction with the male role, and sexual interest in males.
None of these cases had signs of autogynephilia, such as fetishistic cross-dressing.
Finally, their decisions to transition were made on the basis of optimizing sexual
and social functioning, rather than because of a deep conviction that they were
women trapped in men’s bodies.
Conway (2006), Andrea James (2006), Deirdre McCloskey (2003), Nancy Nan-
geroni (Grubb 2004), and Joan Roughgarden (2003).The most visible exception
has been Anne Lawrence, a physician, researcher, and psychotherapist, who both
identifies as autogynephilic and has done most of the recently published research
on autogynephilia.Willow Arune (2004) is another exception.
There are a number of reasons why autogynephilic individuals may prefer the
feminine essence narrative as an account of their condition, even if autogynephilia
is in fact the driving force.These include the concern (pre-transition) that clini-
cians will deem them unacceptable for sex reassignment if their transsexualism is
erotically motivated, or that people will consider them sexually deviant (Bailey
2003; Lawrence 2004). Because autogynephilia produces a strong desire to imag-
ine oneself as a woman, the feminine essence narrative is intrinsically appealing
to autogynephilic individuals, even if it is implausible. In contrast, an explanation
based on autogynephilia may be experienced as a narcissistic injury.
Transsexuals who have successfully accomplished the MtF transition some-
times see themselves as mentors to younger people attempting or considering
this path.They may feel that public acceptance of the feminine essence narrative
will facilitate the transition for these younger individuals. For example, parents
may be more accepting of a child whom they think of as a female unfortunately
born with a male’s body than of one whom they think of as a male erotically
aroused by the idea of being female. Finally, as Lawrence (2007a) notes, postop-
erative transsexuals whose desire and attachment to being women persists as
their sex drive diminishes with age may come to doubt that this desire has any-
thing to do with eroticism. She also explains how this pattern is explicable via
autogynephilia.
Attempts to Intimidate Proponents of Blanchard’s Theory
Beyond denying the role of autogynephilia in MtF transsexualism, some
transsexual activists have mounted attacks on those who publicly disagree with
them. In 2003, the first author published a book, The Man Who Would Be Queen,
about male femininity, including MtF transsexualism. The section on transsexu-
alism included summaries of Blanchard’s theory illustrated by transsexual women
of both types whom he had met, and who agreed to let their stories be included.
Upon publication, there was a firestorm of controversy among some MtF trans-
sexuals. Most notably, the transsexual activists Lynn Conway (2006) and Andrea
James (2006) led an internet “investigation” into the publication of the book.
Conway (2004) likened the book to “Nazi propaganda” and said that it was
“transsexual women’s worst nightmare.”
As a result of Conway’s and James’s efforts, a number of very public academic,
personal, and professional accusations were made against the first author. None
of these accusations was true (Bailey 2005). (For an historical investigation into
the controversy surrounding The Man Who Would Be Queen, including a descrip-
tion of the substance and the merits of the accusations, see Dreger 2007.) The
attacks on The Man Who Would Be Queen were precisely an attempt to punish the
author for writing approvingly about Blanchard’s ideas, and to intimidate others
from doing so.
The second author was also attacked by some of the same transsexuals after
she helped create the Website transkids.us.This website was created by a group of
homosexual transsexuals, or “transkids,” their nonclinical name for themselves, to
educate the clinical and research communities in the wake of the controversy re-
garding The Man Who Would Be Queen. The writings on the site both endorsed
Blanchard’s distinction between homosexual and autogynephilic MtF transsexu-
als and criticized the standard feminine essence narrative as being both false and
harmful to homosexual MtF transsexuals. Subsequently, Andrea James (2007)
conducted highly personal attacks on individual transkids (including the second
author), urging that these transkids be exposed and asserting that they were
“fakes” because they would not reveal their identities publicly.
via political pressure cannot be the right way to advance science. The scientific
costs of this pressure include embracing a less plausible theory and failure to ad-
vance the better theory. For example, it is possible that some transsexuals’ resist-
ance to the current theory is due to its incompleteness, which prevents it from
explaining their inner experiences to their satisfaction (Lawrence 2007a).
Progress toward a more complete theory is impeded by the kinds of pressure we
have described, but it would be facilitated by thoughtful criticism.
Harm to Homosexual Transsexuals
Clinicians who work with transgender patients and who believe in the fem-
inine essence narrative of MtF transsexualism sometimes take a similar approach
to both homosexual and nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals. For example, the sec-
ond author knows transkids whose therapists have offered them, and their fam-
ilies, readings by and about nonhomosexual transsexuals (e.g., She’s Not There, by
Jennifer Boylan [2003] and Conundrum by Jan Morris [1987]). The narratives in
these readings did not even approximate the transkids’ lives, and the therapists’
assumptions that they did had a highly negative effect on the transkids’ attitudes
toward therapy. Inevitably, they dropped out early.
Homosexual and nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals have different life issues
and goals, and the persistence of the belief that they are similar prevents devel-
opment of clinical interventions likely to benefit the homosexual subtype.Velas-
quez (2004) has argued that there is a lack of meaningful therapy for young
homosexual transsexuals like herself, and that this is because transkids are not
recognized as a subtype distinct from nonhomosexual transsexuals.The denial of
autogynephilia helps make this possible.
Harm to Autogynephilic Male-to-Female Transsexuals
There are also substantial human costs to autogynephilic transsexuals due to
insistence on the false, feminine essence narrative. We consider two groups
whom we believe are harmed by embracing the false narrative at the expense of
Blanchard’s categorical theory: autogynephiles not in denial, and autogynephiles
in denial.
Although few nonhomosexual MtF transsexuals publicly identify as autogy-
nephilic, many more do so privately. Of the e-mail correspondence the first
author received regarding The Man Who Would Be Queen, about a third was from
individuals who understood themselves to be autogynephilic. Some of these in-
dividuals said that reading about Blanchard’s theory in the book had been reve-
latory and that they understood themselves for the first time, and all of them
were happy that autogynephilia was being discussed openly.
Even before the controversy concerning the book, transsexuals sympathetic to
Blanchard’s ideas have found themselves unwelcome in transsexual forums (e.g.,
online forums discussing transgender issues).Typically, any endorsement of Blan-
References
Allison, B. 1998. Janice Raymond and autogynephilia. http://www.drbecky.com/ray-
mond.html.
American Psychiatric Association (APA). 2000. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders, 4th ed., text revision.Washington, DC: APA.
Arune,W. 2004. I am Arune. http://www.autogynephilia.org/I%20AM%20ARUNE.htm.
Bailey, J. M. 2003. The man who would be queen: The science of gender-bending and transsexu-
alism.Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
Gender Identity Research and Education Society (GIRES). 2006.Atypical gender devel-
opment: A review. Int J Transgender 9(1):29–44.
Gooren, L. 2006. The biology of human psychosexual differentiation. Horm Behav 50:
589–601.
Green, R. 1987. The “sissy boy syndrome” and the development of homosexuality. New Haven:
Yale Univ. Press.
Grubb, R. J. 2004. Lambda literary awards come under fire. Bay Windows, Feb. 19.
Herman-Jeglínska, A., A. Grabowska, and S. Dulko. 2002. Masculinity, femininity, and
transsexualism. Arch Sex Behav 31:527–34.
Hulshoff Pol, H. E., et al. 2006. Changing your sex changes your brain: Influences of tes-
tosterone and estrogen on adult human brain structure. Eur J Endocrinol 155(suppl. 1):
S107–S114.
James, A. 2006. Categorically wrong? A Bailey-Blanchard-Lawrence clearinghouse. http:
//www.tsroadmap.com/info/bailey-blanchard-lawrence.html.
James,A. 2007. Internet fakes:“transkids.us” http://www.tsroadmap.com/info/transkids/
index.html.
Kruijver, F. P., et al. 2000. Male-to-female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a
limbic nucleus. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 85:2034–41.
Lawrence, A. A. 1998. Men trapped in men’s bodies: An introduction to the concept of
autogynephilia. Transgend Tapestry 1(85):65–68.
Lawrence, A. A. 1999a. 28 narratives about autogynephilia. http://www.annelawrence.
com/agnarratives.html.
Lawrence, A. A., 1999b. 31 new narratives about autogynephilia. http://www.anne
lawrence.com/31narratives.html.
Lawrence, A. A. 2004. Autogynephilia: A paraphilic model of gender identity disorder. J
Gay Lesbian Psychother 8(1/2):69–87
Lawrence,A.A. 2005. Sexuality before and after male-to-female sex reassignment surgery.
Arch Sex Behav 34:147–66.
Lawrence, A. A. 2006. Clinical and theoretical parallels between desire for limb amputa-
tion and gender identity disorder. Arch Sex Behav 35(3):263–78.
Lawrence, A. A. 2007a. Becoming what we love: Autogynephilic transsexualism concep-
tualized as an expression of romantic love. Perspect Biol Med 50(4):506–20.
Lawrence,A.A. 2007b.A critique of the brain-sex theory of transsexualism. http://www.
annelawrence.com/brain-sex_critique.html.
Lippa, R. A. 2001. Gender-related traits in transsexuals and nontranssexuals. Arch Sex
Behav 30:603–14.
McCloskey, D. 2003. Queer science. Reason Mag 35(6):46–52.
Morris, J. 1987. Conundrum. New York: H. Holt.
Moser, C. 2001. Paraphilia:Another confused sexological concept. In New directions in sex
therapy: Innovations and alternatives, ed. P. J. Kleinplatz, 91–108. Philadelphia: Brunner-
Routledge.
Roughgarden, J. 2003. Open letter to the presidents of the NAS and IOM. May 6. http:
//ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/JOAN-ROUGHGARDEN-LETTER.
html.
Smith, Y. L. S., et al. 2005. Transsexual subtypes: Clinical and theoretical significance.
Psychiatr Res 137(3):151–60.